I, You, He, She

Released in 1974 this experimental Belgian feature film from filmmaker Chantal Anne Akerman was shot in black and white and has 3 parts to it of approximately half an hour each. In the first segment a woman named Julie(Akerman) narrates her activities in a room over a number of days, as she paints and rearranges furniture in the room, moves her mattress around, writes letters, eats bags of sugar, and lounges naked on her mattress, as ambient sounds drift into the room from outside. We're not sure what we are watching here, with the narration sometimes being a little out of sync with the images, but in this little enclosed world many ideas spring to mind, including the boredom, isolation and entrapment of domestic chores and housework, something about the creative process (and ritual) of writing, the idea of mental health, drugs, and voyeurism. After 'being there's for a number of days, in the film's second segment Julie hitches a lift from a lorry driver(Niels Arestrup), stops at roadside cafes, gives the odd hand job, and has to listen to the lorry driver's life story in a long monologue. In segment three Julie visits her friend(Claire Wauthion) and makes love with her in a 12 minute long scene, with the two naked bodies often looking like they're wrestling with each other, before the climax, where her friend goes down on Julie. With her trademark still camera this film seems to say something about the director's relationship with men, women, the creative process, us the viewer(male and female), and herself.

The first part I could "see" what was going on, and I can get into video still frames of sort. These fade-outs were slow in a way that was awkward, then felt deliberate and meaningful and restful, then felt flatly back into awkward before scene cutout.

The second third of the movie was good. Still scenescapes, but less of a bathtub story, and some character development for both. The dialogue/monologue was good. The sexuality of it was awkward and one sided-very meaningful for this portion of the story. All three stars are for this part.

The last third was meh. There wasn't a spark between them, only for mischievousness. As a lesbian, I'm also confused by the extended sex scene. I think human intimacy can be beautiful, but here we see...loving wrestling? I think they were trying to allude to tribbing. It failed.

I have to be honest, this was a damn tedious film. It may have been trying to communicate depression, the banality of real, unromanticized sex, or the banality of existence in general. It may have been trying to communicate a progression from loneliness, to meaningless sex with a man, to true passion with another woman. I don't know, but regardless, it does so in such a sterile, painfully slow way that it was tough for me to stay interested after the first 15 minutes, and it never got better. I'm all for the groundbreaking nature of putting a long lesbian sex scene on the screen in 1974 (especially the way it was shot), but mostly I just felt bored and manipulated by pretentiousness. Maybe this would have worked for me as a 15 minute short, but as it is, it was a real chore to finish.

Having been interested in avant-garde cinema for about 50 years, I could see myself with my friends back in college, parsing something like this. This was the time of an eight hour film of a man sleeping. Every hour or so he would turn over or readjust his pillow. I suppose this lays a foundation for a filmmaker to eventually break from this into something with some sense. This film about a girl who spends a week eating powdered sugar, painting her apartment, and moving her mattress around probably does something for someone. She also poses in the nude, inviting voyeurism, which, I suppose we can only guess at. The other two thirds of the film, a meeting with a blue collar worker to watch a gangster movie, and a lesbian love scene, hang on for what seems like hours. Anyway, I haven't anything to contribute other than the final love scene reminded me of a film about insects, where a wasp struggles with an insect of equal size, grasps him and stings him until he is dead. There is endless convulsing, short moments of relaxation and exhaustion, and, finally, the coup de grace.

Long, slow, static shots. A girl does a couple random, pointless, inane things in a small room. Long fades to black. Bland narration. Nothing very interesting happening. It actually starts to get slightly interesting when we finally get a second character who provides some real talk. Then jumps into an incredibly long, exaggerated, and boring lesbian scene. The end.

This is just another artsy fartsy film that is fairly pointless and meaningless and vapid. It's some kind of "reflection" on sexuality, but with nothing insightful or even interesting to provide the viewer. The photography is just average. It slightly reminded me of the vastly superior film "Un homme qui dort" from the same year.